Book is a cross-cultural study of rhetorical tradition as they exist or have existed in societies around the world
Four objectives 1. Compare to identify what is universal and what is distinctive, 2. Formulate a general theory of rhetoric to apply in all societies (an innate or deep rhetorical faculty we all share). 3. Develop and test structures and terminology that can be used. 4. Apply what has been learned to contemporary cross-cultural communication <greater scope>
Book divided in half. First half is oral cultures.
What we call rhetoric is not only Western but occurred in other early literate cultures
Sees rhet as wider, as “form of mental and emotional energy” a means of self and community preservation.
Rhet is a natural phenomenon
In all life forms that five signals, the source of human language.
Rhet is distinguished from communication which would not take place without the rhetorical impulse to drive it. Communication is the transmission.
Everything is rhetorical
Takes five canons and compares to others ie Chinese Canon which puts emphasis on other skills.
Wants one set of terminology to discuss rhetoric
Rhet among social animals
Darwin—life on a continuum, not divided.
Sees emotion and “human” qualities in animals to a point. Also sees rhetoric in animals, and he is not alone, cites others
Animals use a combination of sounds and body language to communicate with each other and with humans (pets)
Refutes Chomsky and Pinker who see animals as no communication w a different mental apparatus.
Says we share a deep natural rhetoric with animals
Dogs can recognize metonymy: leash=walk. Some employ it, bringing leash as request—but not metaphor
Animals can lie/deceive
Animals can deliberate (bees deciding where to move)
Animal judicial rhetoric—females decide which males
Epidictic—animals praise and shame
Aristotle assembly of crows—they call meetings
Arrangement and style in birdsong—imitation and individuality.
All suggests has natural root in social animals
Stags preparing to battle use five cannons, if not completely verbally
Much remains speculative, researchers have neglected to consider the rhetorical situation in which language developed—daily needs
Cannot find onset of human language because you are influenced by your own rhet, evolutionary, biblical, etc.
Human languages developed from animal communication: logos, pathos, ethos, thought ethos more slowly
Ch 3. Rhet in Aboriginal Australian culture
Many concepts of Western rhetorical theory have little application to aboriginal due to lack of civic rhetorical flourishes, schools, public ceremonies, etc.
No orators in this culture, religious song instead: schedoche and metonymy play high role. Lots of body tropes: arm of creek, etc.
Ch 4 Formal speech in some non- literate cultures—general aim is consensus and preservation of tradition—like Ong says.
Chapter 5. Native American rhet. Caution as dissimilar groups in many ways. Oral, so much rhet related by whites.
Pan Indian movement: ghost dance
Indians did not use oaths, recognized their own word as sufficient.
Ancient near east
Less debate
Rhet in books of proverbs
Persuasion in old testament—10 commandments(oral, but depicted as written, I say)
Rhetorical conventions appear in letter writing, formulas, salutating, ethical and pathetical appeals—and argument from probability
Like orals generally for defending traditional values
Rhet in Ancient China
Rhet for elite
Confucius vs. platonic Socrates
Contemporaries in time—similarities in focus on true wisdom. Both hostile to rhetoric but differ in how.
Chinese sophistry=school of names
Socrates attacked Greek sophists; Confucius attacked Chinese sophists
China rich in historiographical and rhetorical tradition.
Speech, however, not studied separately but as a part of political and moral philosophy.
“no influence of western rhetoric on ancient china and thus Chinese rhet theory represents best example of a conceptualized non-western tradition for comparative study similarities suggest universal features and differences arising from different language and different historical experiences.
Rhet in Ancient India
Resistant to writing
Brahmin rhet—prestige class—intellectuals, elite.
Influence of reincarnation
Epic poetry
Sophistry in India—closer to philosophy
Buddha breaks with Hindus to seek knowledge. 563-487 BCE Contemporary of Confucius
no enthymemes, but logical structure exists
Contact between India and Greece through Alexander
Rhet in Ancient Greece and Rome
Greece—bards writing
Rhet in poetry in Homeric forms—first written
VOTING rhetoric; plurality and ostracism. Voted regularly to expel people, a regularly timed vote—someone must go.
Rome, more pragmatic
Atticism—the second Sophistic
Greek society was characterized by a contentiousness expressed in mythology, athletics, poetry, democratic government, and public addresses—it’s acceptable to disagree. Rome a working together machine. Decision by majority. Romans, despite some early resistance, largely took over Greek discipline and transmitted.
Concl follow All communication carries some rhetorical energy—it may be slight, but there is no zero-degree rhetoric.
Our terminology is useful but it falls short
Greek rhet is distinct study/main difference
Greek is special in that is competitive to a height. This is all just a starting place.
Kennedy George. Comparative Rhetoric (1998)